An “Equal Rights” ordinance in the Dallas suburb of Plano passed in December has created ongoing controversy , with citizens of the town signing petitions for a recall of the ordinance (I couldn’t find what the current status of this situation is, though if the petitions are verified a repeal could be put before the city council) . This ordinance expanded an earlier ordinance barring “discrimination in places of public accommodation, employment practices, housing transactions and city contracting practices” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Churches and religious freedom groups have led opposition to the ordinance
Sounds reasonable enough, right? Before I’m accused of being a heatless homophobe (well, I am, but that’s beside the point), let me say this. If this was about someone being denied a burger and a beer at a bar/restaurant simply because he was gay, then there might be a genuine issue, but that’s not what this is about. The reality is that similar ordinances in other cities have led to such things as bakery owners threatened with jail time for refusing to bake “gay wedding” cakes.
The ordinance also sparked concern about private establishments being forced by law to allow “transgendered” persons to share bathrooms and such with persons of the opposite “biological” sex. In other words, Big Bob must be allowed to share a restroom with your daughter if he declares himself a woman in a man’s body; unless the owner wants to pay a hefty fine. And if any of you ladies have any issue with that, well, you’re just hateful bigots.
The problem is not people being denied service because of their sexual preferences, but about business owners being forced by government to provide products with a message that violates their sincere moral/religious beliefs.
Those bleeding hearts who think such ordinances are a great idea, or even morally necessary, should ponder the following scenarios.
Should a bakery be forced to bake cakes with a blatantly racist or anti-Semitic message? Or should a business be forced to cater KKK or neo-Nazi meetings?
My point isn’t that a “gay marriage” is the same as Nazism, but about where does one draw the line when forcing private business owners to provide products or cater events that violate their sincere moral or religious beliefs?
Much as one might find the hateful and racist messages or groups I mentioned appalling, refusing to cater to them would still in fact be discrimination against certain types of customer demands, just as refusing to bake a gay wedding cake would be.
Let’s be honest; the real issue here isn’t that GLBTQs – whatever the current alphabet soup is – being unable to find businesses that will cater to them. In any town or city of any size, I’m sure there is no shortage of businesses happy to cater to the demands of homosexual customers. Wherever there’s a demand, supply will exist to fulfill it and profit from it . That’s the beauty of the free market. If one baker doesn’t want to bake you a gay cake, another will be happy to bake it for you instead.
The ordinance makes about as much sense as forcing Christian bookstores to sell porn or copies of The Satanic Bible. (Okay, I should probably shut up now lest I give the liberals ideas.)
Of course, these local skirmishes will be all but forgotten in the shadow of the upcoming Supreme Court hearing on “gay marriage,” which liberals confidently assure us will result in all states being forced to recognize “gay marriage,” whether the people of those states want it or not. (If they are right, it will be yet another example of SCOTUS granting the federal government powers found nowhere in the Constitution, but that’s a whole other rant.)
It should be obvious to everybody now that the “gay rights” movement is no longer about tolerance (if that was ever truly the goal). Tolerance is about simply leaving other folks alone, whether we agree with their actions or not. Now, we must all be forced by law to give approval and support to sexually deviant behavior. And non-compliance will not be tolerated.
Update: Shortly after this rant was published, the mayor turned down the petitions on the ground that they were bogus or not sufficiently documented, or something. I don’t know all the facts on this, but I think we can generally trust our public officials – to lie to us.)